9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 908 - AT - FEMAReview application - Held that - It is pertinent to mention that the order dated 16.07.2016 has not been challenged by the appellant/applicants in the higher court. It has become final. The amount fixed in the said order has not been deposited and it is apparent that the appellants have no intention to deposit the same. We are of the view that the review application filed by the appellant/review applicant is not maintainable as the applicant has failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record on the order passed by this court and is trying to re-argue its case as if it was an appeal which is beyond the scope of the Order XLVLL Rule 1 CPC and as such the review application is liable to be dismissed. An application for review cannot be entertained only for the purpose of rehearing of the case See K.A. ANSARI & ANR Versus INDIAN AIRLINES LTD 2008 (11) TMI 668 - SUPREME COURT
Issues:
1. Discussion of prima facie case in the impugned order 2. Consideration of various contentions raised by the Appellant/Applicant 3. Maintainability of the review application filed by the Appellant 4. Failure of the Appellant to deposit the amount fixed in the previous order 5. Dismissal of the review petition and application for condonation of delay Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with a Miscellaneous Application in Appeal No. 27 of 2014, where the Appellant raised concerns about the Tribunal not discussing the prima facie case in the impugned order dated 5th July, 2016. The Appellant argued that the judgments were not properly discussed, and erroneous conclusions were drawn. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that all aspects were adequately addressed in the impugned order, specifically in paragraphs 9 to 12, which highlighted the issues requiring scrutiny related to contraventions of FEMA provisions and the imposition of penalties. 2. The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both parties, refrained from making any findings on the issues raised to avoid influencing the final outcome. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal decided to allow partial waiver of the penalty amount, directing the Appellant company to deposit a specified sum within a set period and furnish reliable security. The Tribunal stayed the recovery of the penalty amount pending the appeal's disposal, subject to the Appellants' compliance with the deposit and security requirements. 3. The Appellant's attempt to re-argue the case on merits and re-agitate issues already addressed during the application for Stay was deemed inappropriate by the Tribunal. The Tribunal questioned the maintainability of the review application, emphasizing that it was beyond the scope of the applicable rules to treat the review as an appeal. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents to support the dismissal of the review application, highlighting that a review cannot serve as a means for rehearing the case. 4. Notably, the Tribunal observed that the order dated 16th July, 2016, which had become final as it was not challenged in a higher court, required the Appellants to deposit a specified amount. The Tribunal noted the Appellants' failure to comply with the deposit requirement, indicating a lack of intention to fulfill the financial obligations as directed in the previous order. 5. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the review petition and the application for condonation of delay, citing legal principles that restrict reviews from being used as a platform for re-arguing cases or seeking a different outcome that could have been achieved through an appeal. The dismissal was based on the Appellant's failure to demonstrate any error on the face of the record in the previous order, reinforcing the finality of the decisions made by the Tribunal.
|
